Post: #151

Sure culture differences, issue is if you disagree with said person that chat does not get friendly. If you agree you become best buds.

Better to find their affiliation indirectly and then sneakily take their side... Winning their affection regardless of your true beliefs.

One approach says win lose, the second says win win.

(07-03-2012 02:46 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-03-2012 02:33 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  Game lesson learned.

Read this thread to understand why you never talk about politics on dates.

I'm pretty sure the aversion to political discussion is a cultural thing. Americans seem to be among some of the most sensitive to political discussions.


In 07' I went traveling through France.
I was staying with a family, when a neighbor rolled in the driveway on his bicycle.

The first thing he said to me was, "Hey man, what do you think George W. Bush?"

No names, no introductions, straight to politics.


Talking about politics in France was like talking about music in America.

Post: #152

(07-03-2012 02:51 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  Sure culture differences, issue is if you disagree with said person that chat does not get friendly. If you agree you become best buds.

Better to find their affiliation indirectly and then sneakily take their side... Winning their affection regardless of your true beliefs.

One approach says win lose, the second says win win.

With things like religion, politics, emotiOnally charged topics. You will have an extremely tough time changing their opinion rapidly, in such case you change it as they start to respect, care and yes even become enfauated/love you.

(07-03-2012 02:46 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-03-2012 02:33 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  Game lesson learned.

Read this thread to understand why you never talk about politics on dates.

I'm pretty sure the aversion to political discussion is a cultural thing. Americans seem to be among some of the most sensitive to political discussions.


In 07' I went traveling through France.
I was staying with a family, when a neighbor rolled in the driveway on his bicycle.

The first thing he said to me was, "Hey man, what do you think George W. Bush?"

No names, no introductions, straight to politics.


Talking about politics in France was like talking about music in America.

Post: #153

(07-03-2012 02:51 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  Sure culture differences, issue is if you disagree with said person that chat does not get friendly. If you agree you become best buds.

Better to find their affiliation indirectly and then sneakily take their side... Winning their affection regardless of your true beliefs.

One approach says win lose, the second says win win.

This is good for manipulating people anywhere, not just dating.

Agreeing with a person makes them like you. Disagreeing with a person makes them dislike you.

The effect is especially pronounced with women. Simply agreeing with a woman makes her think she has a connection to you.


But manipulating people has consequences.

As people learn that others are only interested in maintaining appearances, no one trusts each other.

It makes people fake, vapid, and only concerned with their self-interest.

Think of how the average tourist or newcomer to L.A. describes it:

"Everyone is so fake..."



Not a good way to make friends, or a community, in the long run, because you aren't selecting for people who like each other.

You're selecting for frauds who will turn the second they no longer have a use for each other.


It makes communities about as strong as they are in Russia:

Post: #154

What you are suggesting, getting "real" immediately will get you killed. Interjecting in highly emotional situations will get you killed.

http://dangerandplay.wordpress.com/2012/...nd-killed/

If everyone already knows you an respects you they won't immediately lash out at you. Be agreeable at first then share your opinio over time. Emotionally unstable topics are fools play to win friends/women/money.

(07-03-2012 03:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-03-2012 02:51 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  Sure culture differences, issue is if you disagree with said person that chat does not get friendly. If you agree you become best buds.

Better to find their affiliation indirectly and then sneakily take their side... Winning their affection regardless of your true beliefs.

One approach says win lose, the second says win win.

This is good for manipulating people anywhere, not just dating.

Agreeing with a person makes them like you. Disagreeing with a person makes them dislike you.

The effect is especially pronounced with women. Simply agreeing with a woman makes her think she has a connection to you.


But manipulating people has consequences.

As people learn that others are only interested in maintaining appearances, no one trusts each other.

It makes people fake, vapid, and only concerned with their self-interest.

Think of how the average tourist or newcomer to L.A. describes it:

"Everyone is so fake..."



Not a good way to make friends, or a community, in the long run, because you aren't selecting for people who like each other.

You're selecting for frauds who will turn the second they no longer have a use for each other.


It makes communities about as strong as they are in Russia:

Post: #155

Quote: Post: #154RE: Obama WANTS YOU on welfare!
What you are suggesting, getting "real" immediately will get you killed. Interjecting in highly emotional situations will get you killed.

http://dangerandplay.wordpress.com/2012/...nd-killed/

If everyone already knows you an respects you they won't immediately lash out at you. Be agreeable at first then share your opinio over time. Emotionally unstable topics are fools play to win friends/women/money.

The video on D&P shows the illustrates my point perfectly.

As a survival mechanism, manipulating others by giving your fake opinion is an excellent strategy.

But as far as building communities go, you end up with a hellhole when everyone turns evil.


Russia was a country with one of the most oppressive regimes in the history of man. The people learned to lie and only agree with the dominant philsophy.

Today the country is in tatters, not least of which is from the failure of communist ideology, but because citizens no longer trust or respect each other.

See how the women and men on the street walk by the unconscious people on the street. That's no different in principle than keeping your mouth shut when someone expresses an incorrect opinion.

Post: #156

Yes, maybe we have the same point?

Basically you must choose to "manipulate at first" then express your true opinion. Going guns a blazing on any charged situation leads to failure.

Strong opinions means shit when they fall on deaf ears.

Post: #157

(07-03-2012 02:46 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-03-2012 02:33 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  Game lesson learned.

Read this thread to understand why you never talk about politics on dates.

I'm pretty sure the aversion to political discussion is a cultural thing. Americans seem to be among some of the most sensitive to political discussions.


In 07' I went traveling through France.
I was staying with a family, when a neighbor rolled in the driveway on his bicycle.

The first thing he said to me was, "Hey man, what do you think George W. Bush?"

No names, no introductions, straight to politics.


Talking about politics in France was like talking about music in America.

I lived in Western Europe for 5 years and didn't find this to be the case. As in the US, there are obnoxious people who will throw their politics in your face as soon as they meet you and yell about it, but this was a very small minority of blowhards. Most people have basic social skills.

Post: #158

(07-02-2012 04:02 PM)assman Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 03:00 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  Aside from Hooligan Harry, anyone else notice how some of the most conservative guys on the forum are also some of the least traveled? Correlation?

Which conservatives are you referring to?

Nearly all the pages in my current passport are full of stamps.

mine too....and i've been all over the good ole U S of A

Post: #159

(07-03-2012 01:13 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  Plenty of conservatives opposed the war and are generally isolationists (see Pat Buchanan). By the end of his 8 years Bush's big gov/pro-war policies had lost him a lot of support among conservatives.

They were pretty quiet back then though, right?

Post: #160

(07-03-2012 01:58 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(07-03-2012 12:52 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  Iraq was because Saddam was chasing a gold backed currency. If he landed it, you would be sitting with 50% unemployment right now. You stayed in Iraq as long as you had to so that a transition could be made to pro western governments and support for the petrodollar.

Conspiratorial nonsense.

Lol.

I say this as a guy who is in energy and works with banks, government and large energy companies. Almost all my work is in Europe, Africa and the former USSR when not in Aus. This is not new, its been going on for decades. Its reality, and most global conflicts and regional issues at the moment are related to currency and energy. Nothing more, nothing less. Look at my travel log and put some things together if you must.

If oil and gas were traded in a currency other than the dollar, you would see a run on the dollar and it would lose its reserve status. It would cripple the US and western markets. Why do you think China and Russia have supported Iran? Why do you think they condemned the attacks on Libya? OPEC is chasing the gold dinar, Russia and China believe the USA is weak enough now that Iran could pull it off as debt breaks you and political pressure from your voter base wants an end to conflict it cant afford.

You dont live in a cocoon and your domestic policy has an impact on world economies and politics because the world was stupid enough to agree to use the dollar as its reserve currency.

The USA has been printing money for years. You took on debt to grow and increased social spending, implemented social programs which when combined with downward pressure on wages fueled inflation and the erosion of the dollars value.

That decline affects energy producing nations because you export your inflation when the world uses the dollar. They dont want your inflation, they want a stable currency so they can give their people a better life too. They want gold backed currencies and OPEC supports it, as does BRIC, ASEAN and the AU, because its less prone to manipulation by central banks. Been like this since the 70's. Its why you are seeing trade between countries growing outside existing currency markets. Look at all the recent moves by Brazil, Russia, China and India to use different currencies and trade outside the dollar. Even Australia is doing it because of the pressure we are under from China and India.

It does not matter if you have Dems or Republicans in office, the wars are going to happen. They cannot drum up support for a war over currency issues, but they can do it over threats to security that are tangible. Both parties are warmongers because they have to be.

Why do you think Syria is being destablalised? Why do you think aggression against Iran has increased under Obama? Why do you think Obama joined in on the attack on Libya without congressional approval? He is playing to the same game plan because he has to. Just like Bush had to.

Blind support for Democrats makes no sense. The economic problems you sit with now are as a result of their policies as much as anything, and the reason for the wars is because people are losing faith in the dollar. Does not matter who is president, an attack on your currency is an attack on your economy, which is an attack on your people. Obama is no different to Bush, who is no different to Clinton. They would all have to act on it, it just depends on who draws the short straw.

Believe what you want to believe, but know that Iran is chasing the bomb for their own national security to prevent western invasion so it can launch a new currency. First will come its bomb, then will come its dinar. OPEC and BRIC will unify behind it, and western countries lose their energy supplies and production they outsourced to the East and South America as their currencies are sold off. I think it very likely that the USA will invade Iran after the election regardless of who wins.

The only way to save the USA's economy is to overcome your debt issues and restore faith in the dollar before its abandoned. Thats not going to happen with your entitlements and social spending on the rise, which is why a Dem government is going to sink you. You are going left when you need to go right, and you have to keep spending on the military because if you do not, the continued perception of growing weakness will see the dam walls break eventually.

Long term the USA will come right, but your dollar is finished because you have too much debt and there are more Speakeasy's than Brians at the voting booth these days. You want cool people in office, not people who can make hard decisions. I dont think the US can overcome its problems because the people dont have the will to see it happen and are drunk on social democracy without fully understanding the predicament you are in from a global perspective.

Im just a conspiracy crackpot on the interwebs though, no need to worry brah.

Post: #161

Quote:The USA has been printing money for years. You took on debt to grow and increased social spending, implemented social programs which when combined with downward pressure on wages fueled inflation and the erosion of the dollars value.

That decline affects energy producing nations because you export your inflation when the world uses the dollar. They dont want your inflation, they want a stable currency so they can give their people a better life too.

I just want to elaborate on this a bit for those who don't follow economics.


In 2011 America borrowed around 1.5 trillion.

If we take that money, which is basically a promise to be repaid, and then use it to buy stuff the people who get the dollars basically have a big IOU.

Saudi Arabia sells us 1 barrel for $89, but the dollars they hold are merely promises to be repaid back in the near future. Combined with record amounts of borrowing by the USA, this means that the promises Saudi Arabia hold continue to diminish in value.

Investors lose confidence, and then people start wanting to get rid of their dollars. People realize that not all the debts can be paid back, so it becomes a giant game of musical chairs -

Who is fucked holding the dollars last?

Post: #162

After reading through the last few pages all I have to say is: thank God I don't live in America. Now let's just hope that China doesn't have a hard landing any time soon...

Post: #163

(07-04-2012 12:04 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:The USA has been printing money for years. You took on debt to grow and increased social spending, implemented social programs which when combined with downward pressure on wages fueled inflation and the erosion of the dollars value.

That decline affects energy producing nations because you export your inflation when the world uses the dollar. They dont want your inflation, they want a stable currency so they can give their people a better life too.

I just want to elaborate on this a bit for those who don't follow economics.


In 2011 America borrowed around 1.5 trillion.

If we take that money, which is basically a promise to be repaid, and then use it to buy stuff the people who get the dollars basically have a big IOU.

Saudi Arabia sells us 1 barrel for $89, but the dollars they hold are merely promises to be repaid back in the near future. Combined with record amounts of borrowing by the USA, this means that the promises Saudi Arabia hold continue to diminish in value.

Investors lose confidence, and then people start wanting to get rid of their dollars. People realize that not all the debts can be paid back, so it becomes a giant game of musical chairs -

Who is fucked holding the dollars last?

I would like to comment on this and point out that, while the USA has borrowed a lot in recent years, mainly because of the persistent economic slump (and cuts) that eroded its tax revenues, this debt does not matter. It has no provided any additional load on USA, as far as servicing the debt interest rate payments goes.

How is that possible, you ask?

The current inflation in USA is between 2 and 2.5%. Meanwhile, the yield on government 10-year bonds has fallen from some 3% to 1.5%. That means that, in essence, the financial markets and other countries are paying a 0.5% interest rate TO the USA just to keep their money safe.

In essence, the entire world is begging the USA to take its money and invest it to end this depression.

Post: #164

(07-04-2012 07:40 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  I would like to comment on this and point out that, while the USA has borrowed a lot in recent years, mainly because of the persistent economic slump (and cuts) that eroded its tax revenues, this debt does not matter. It has no provided any additional load on USA, as far as servicing the debt interest rate payments goes.

How is that possible, you ask?

The current inflation in USA is between 2 and 2.5%. Meanwhile, the yield on government 10-year bonds has fallen from some 3% to 1.5%. That means that, in essence, the financial markets and other countries are paying a 0.5% interest rate TO the USA just to keep their money safe.

In essence, the entire world is begging the USA to take its money and invest it to end this depression.

There is a basic principle at work. The USD replaced gold and is the worlds reserve currency. The purchasing power of the USD has been decimated, hence why all the occupy wall street kiddies are going ballistic over your growing wealth gap. The dollar today does not buy you what the dollar bought you 30 years ago, even adjusted for inflation

The fact that the dollar is losing value means that every market in the world, which is forced to sell its commodities in USD, is seeing less and less for their exports. Their surplus is being decimated every single year by this as is the value of their true GDP. They are sick of it.

They are getting poorer, and they are getting poorer because you guys have taken to social programs and social entitlement programs that were unsustainable. Domestic policy and debt has reverberated through the entire financial system, all so you could enjoy a standard of living that puts you in the top 1% of the planet at their expense.

One of the ONLY ways to combat this is to buy USD and keep the exchange rate in your favour. Hence why China, Japan and Russia own the bulk of your debt.

THEY ARE NOT INVESTING IN THE AMERICAN SAFE HAVEN, THEY ARE TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE DAMAGE

What this means for you is two things

1) No matter who is in power, military spending cannot stop until you either solve your debt problems or revert to gold first. Anyone who attempts to launch a gold standard you simply have to go to war with if they are major energy exporter (OPEC) or producer (ASEAN, China). There is no middle ground, because a gold standard will break you.

2) If you do not solve your debt problem and the perception of American weakness continues to the point where someone gets gold off, we are all fucked. Western markets as a whole will be smashed because we no longer produce anything. We are talking decade long depression with 50% unemployment. Serious, serious poverty for some.

Obama will accelerate the decline because he will plunge you into more debt. He is ideological and power hungry, and he came along at the worst time possible geo politically.

The Republicans may not fare much better either, although they cant do worse. They may keep debt in check though, at least we can hope.

Neither can cut military spending, it will be the death of your economy. Not from internal production, from external movements against the currency and the USA. No one wants to invade you, but they dont need to anymore.

Lastly no matter who wins, there is a very strong possibility that either will invade Iran. Obama has been behind technological attacks, drone attacks and assassination already in Iran. The media are playing about how the Iranians "don hate you for your freedumz" and how they want to tango with Israel. He will have to move against Iran before Iran gets WMD's. If they get them, the dinar is coming and its good night.

You dont solve your debt problem, you are done. You vote left, you will probably accelerate the debt problem.

Post: #165

I'd like to have a beer with you Harry. Obama has been a disaster of the worst kind. After 8 years of Bush he had a democratic congress going into his presidency and a mandate from the country to turn us around. He could have been an FDR. That was his potential anyway. Instead he has accelerated virtually all of our problems.

If you want to get an idea of just how weak and uncapable he is, he couldn't even implement an infrastructure rebuilding program properly because a couple of feminist special interest groups complained that those jobs favored men. He didn't even put up a fight and caved to their demands. It is unimaginable:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Pu...asp?page=1

But, I digress.

Our debt problems center around the aging baby boomer populace and promised social programs that were never funded. That and totally out of control health care costs. The political failure of our leaders to avert these systemic problems is unforgivable. We have 80 million baby boomers who have paid between themselves and their employers 15% of their income their entire lives into what has been sold as a retirement program that is entirely unfunded. What is in the social security fund? T-Bills, because prior administrations spent the money. Now majority of these 80 million baby boomers are of retirement age and will be depending on social security just to live - especially if their 401k's are affected. The money isn't there, so we must fund it with debt. No politician can go against their majority politically, or they will be voted out.

I think the whole world is familiar with the mess of our healthcare system. These costs are, however, going to be much larger than social security as an aging populace uses a lot of healthcare. Medicare & social security alone guarantee massive amounts of future debt even if they are reformed, cementing us firmly onto a debt ridden collision course.

Lastly, financial derivates virtually guarantee to wipe out the trans-Atlantic banking system unless Glass-Steagal or similar legislation get put through. The amount of over leverage in the system and speculative investment is mind boggling. A house of cards.

I think the only positive thing we have going for us is the amount of gold we have. If you believe our unaudited estimates, we are the Saoudi Arabia of gold reserves. A future president could theoretically do a reverse Nixon, and re-peg the dollar to a gold standard at a price of $10,000 per ounce or so after necessary structural reforms are made to reduce our debt. Of course we'll want to continue exporting our debt (inflation) for as long as possible to the rest of the world. Hopefully that doesn't mean a war with Iran. Depending on how Russia and China respond it could be a nightmare. Our leaders, whomever actually is running the show, need to sit down and agree on an orderly timeline for this transition that averts war and benefits all parties.

I wish the world had adopted an actual gold standard instead of the US dollar as reserve currency, and we wouldn't be in this mess. We would still have a productive economy as we couldn't have monetized our consumption of imports from the rest of the world. It is a shame that Americas largest export to the rest of the world is now inflation.

Post: #166

A great user comment from this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...rough.html

Question: When was the first liberal, socialist mayor, a Democrat, elected in Detroit? Answer: 1960. Question: Since 1960 to what political party have all of the mayors belonged? Answer: Democrat. In the 1950s Detroit was a thriving metropolis and called the Paris of North America. Now Detroit's population is about 1/3 what is was in 1960, the greatest % loss in any decade was over the last 10 years. With 52 years of uninterrupted liberal, socialist rule, Detroit has become the preeminent example of the effectiveness of liberal policy. The city has developed into a liberal utopia, where property is cheap and land is sufficiently available to plant corn and other commercial crops. American socialists are using their performance in Detroit as a blueprint for whole of the United States, e. g., the liberal states of New York and California have lost 3.4 million people and 2 million people, respectively, over the last decade.

Post: #167

When the fuck did it become fashionable to tout the gold standard?

America and the 'western world' witnessed far more boom bust, recession and depression cycles when currencies were pegged to gold. It's why the system had to be changed to allow more flexibility.

We don't dig enough gold out the dirt to peg our currency to it. And if we did, it would depreciate the currency regardless.


The real reason why debt has been mounting is a cascading series of effects starting in WW1 and to the 1970s.

This coincides with the notion that has recently arisen that America's golden age was in 1920-1960, and them 'darned minorities' ruined it all. NO.

America's economy was over expanding in the 1920s due to a bubble (dubbed the roaring 20s). This bubble busted in 1929. The country entered a long 10 year depression/recession until WW2 when congress spent millions (billions in today's currency) arming the Allies and Soviets through the lend lease program, and eventually entering the war. America effectively used debt to get itself out of the depression. Just like it's doing today. It worked. Of course instead of giving money to the banks, it gave money to the military, directly and indirectly. This helped spur employment. The draft took millions of unemployed men to Europ and the Pacific. The factories in the mid west and north east were pumping out weapons. There was such a chronic labour shortage, women had to be hired!

At the End of WW2, Europe lay in ruins. After the war America should have contracted. It didn't. This was simply because it was one of the few western nations remaining that had not had it's inrastrucutre destroyed by the war. From there it was easy to see why it continued to expand up to the 60s. The Soviet Union closed itself off, China was killing itself and the friendly nations of Western Europe were open for reconstruction, on their own dime of course. France, Britain, and Germany had to pay the Americans to help them rebuild their nations. American companies grew, investment soared, etc. Europe and America enjoyed stable growth.

The 60s changed all that. Europe was too broke to keep the lid on nationalism in Africa and the Middle East. It's last remaining large colonies. It didn't have the man power to send troops to quell uprisings. Decolonization was abrupt. When Europe withdrew from Africa and the Middle East, it no longer guaranteed safe access to resources that were directly within European (Western) jurisdiction.

Thus changing times required lot of powerplay that we see today. Government back deals, coups, arming rebel groups, destabilizing countries. All this, so we can get our hands on more resources more smoothly.

This is when Asia opened up. Suddenly the global labour pool quadrupled. This was in the early 70s. It was a co-incidence that the civil rights movement happened then.

From then on it has been a slide downwards for the European and American middle class. The Asian worker moved to cities, China built them overnight.. The Chinese labourer in Shenzhen competes directly with the American worker in Cleveland, but can work for only 30% of the wage of the American minimum wage. Now that the Asian worker is getting paid well, factories are moving to North East and East Africa.

US companies loved this. They no longer had to worry about labour shortages; they could move factories anywhere for low cost production.

Outsourcing and globalization created more global competition and the wages of westerners have began to erode. This is nothing to do with minorities, Obama wanting your money, or some anti central banking conspiracy.

The gold standard was a failure. It also requires a mercintilist system which cannot be implemented in the 21st century.

China and Russia do not want to establish the gold standard, the Chinese are not foolish. The Chinese leaders have come out multiple times and said they want a GLOBAL currency, or some other neutral currency that will be used purely for trade. They don't want a gold standard. They just don’t want the US dollar.

Let me repeat, gold standard is archaic. It cannot work. It didn't work in the past. It didn't work for the Spanish, or for the Americans. The gold standard will not solve anything.

Debt write downs on the other hand...

Post: #168

(07-04-2012 10:22 AM)assman Wrote:  A great user comment from this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...rough.html

Question: When was the first liberal, socialist mayor, a Democrat, elected in Detroit? Answer: 1960. Question: Since 1960 to what political party have all of the mayors belonged? Answer: Democrat. In the 1950s Detroit was a thriving metropolis and called the Paris of North America. Now Detroit's population is about 1/3 what is was in 1960, the greatest % loss in any decade was over the last 10 years. With 52 years of uninterrupted liberal, socialist rule, Detroit has become the preeminent example of the effectiveness of liberal policy. The city has developed into a liberal utopia, where property is cheap and land is sufficiently available to plant corn and other commercial crops. American socialists are using their performance in Detroit as a blueprint for whole of the United States, e. g., the liberal states of New York and California have lost 3.4 million people and 2 million people, respectively, over the last decade.

This proves my post that it's global competition that is causing america the need to re-adjust, not democrats, not republicans, not race theories or political leanings.

Let's take a look at Atlanta. Atlanta is a majority black city, just like Detroit. It has had consecutive Democratic mayors since the 1940s. Just like Detroit. It has not had a single white mayor since 1962, just like Detroit.

Yet Atlanta is a gleaming jewel of the South, while Detroit lies in ruins.

The major difference in between both cities is that one relied heavily on easily outsourcable industries (car manufacturing), the other, on services, which are far more difficult to outsource.

Post: #169

your countries currency should be tied to your workforce/ people. Thus only taking on debt to re-invest into your workforce to make yourself more competitive.

The Gold standard is a cop-out it does not matter what your currency is tied to per-se it matters whom is direct control of the levels and values of that currency.

The issue is that the USA and all nations are being fleeced by the Bankers. There is 1.5 Quadrillion dollars of Debt that needs to be repaid. The global output of earth is only 45 trillion..... do the math. What you see happening now is nothing more than a shell game the elites are using the USA as a proxy to break blocks military or financially but eventually they will dump the USA like the rest of the nations.

The USA will never go sour or default on its debt but it will un-able to keep its citizens distracted and pacified with entitlements. That is the major issue as internal finances always doom empires. It doomed the British when they over extended war spending, it doomed the Soviets when they bursted their bank propping up their inefficient manufacturing sector and military and will doom America when it will no longer to fund and prop up its baby boomer class.

The Detroit vs Atlanta analogy is spot on. Detroit has been in a comma but Detroit in its hay day was ten times over more wealthy then Atlanta. The Detroit Metro still remains one of the wealthiest in America and Atlanta City proper may be more fresh and maintained but it is a tiny sliver in comparison to how large and prosperous Detroit City proper once was. In today's world Atlanta is a beacon of wealth but in comparisons it was a drop in the bucket to what Detroit was doing in its hay day.

I am all about real wealth and goods your nation, City, State has to produce tangible things with real value. When did America stop producing real stuff with real wealth? As far back as the 70's I would say.

Post: #170

(07-04-2012 11:05 AM)kosko Wrote:  When did America stop producing real stuff with real wealth? As far back as the 70's I would say.

It is pretty recently.

There was a good documentary on HBO about the garment industry.

(My numbers may be wrong) As recently as the 80's, something like 80% of clothes were still Made in The USA.

Even in the 90's, it was like 65%.

2000's it dropped to like 10%.

Now it's 5% or below.

Post: #171

(07-04-2012 07:40 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(07-04-2012 12:04 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:The USA has been printing money for years. You took on debt to grow and increased social spending, implemented social programs which when combined with downward pressure on wages fueled inflation and the erosion of the dollars value.

That decline affects energy producing nations because you export your inflation when the world uses the dollar. They dont want your inflation, they want a stable currency so they can give their people a better life too.

I just want to elaborate on this a bit for those who don't follow economics.


In 2011 America borrowed around 1.5 trillion.

If we take that money, which is basically a promise to be repaid, and then use it to buy stuff the people who get the dollars basically have a big IOU.

Saudi Arabia sells us 1 barrel for $89, but the dollars they hold are merely promises to be repaid back in the near future. Combined with record amounts of borrowing by the USA, this means that the promises Saudi Arabia hold continue to diminish in value.

Investors lose confidence, and then people start wanting to get rid of their dollars. People realize that not all the debts can be paid back, so it becomes a giant game of musical chairs -

Who is fucked holding the dollars last?

I would like to comment on this and point out that, while the USA has borrowed a lot in recent years, mainly because of the persistent economic slump (and cuts) that eroded its tax revenues, this debt does not matter. It has no provided any additional load on USA, as far as servicing the debt interest rate payments goes.

How is that possible, you ask?

The current inflation in USA is between 2 and 2.5%. Meanwhile, the yield on government 10-year bonds has fallen from some 3% to 1.5%. That means that, in essence, the financial markets and other countries are paying a 0.5% interest rate TO the USA just to keep their money safe.

In essence, the entire world is begging the USA to take its money and invest it to end this depression.

Interest rates are being kept artificially low because the FED is buying Treasury bonds.

This will not last.


The FED buying Treasury bonds means inflation, since our nation's central bank is buying its own currency, and then loaning it back out to other banks at even lower rates to the major banks (Barclays, Sachs, BoA, etc.) who then loan out the money again at higher rates?


It's huuuuuuge ponzi going on right now, and everyone knows ponzi's cannot last.


Again:

1. Fed buys bonds from Treasury at record low interest rates (below 1%).
2. Fed then sells bonds to major banks at even lower interest rates (below .25%).
3. Major banks loan out the money to commercial banks and people at extremely high rates (over 5% usually) compared to what they got the money for.


That's what's causing inflation. Cheap money is being pumped into the economy to make up for the losses of the housing bubble.

This is also why Bankers have become insanely rich since 2008, because the FED has been giving them free money. Don't you wish you could get bailouts?


Do not be fooled by these low interest rates. The inflation the FED is causing will eventually bite America in the ass, as all inflation does to its host country.

Low interest rates will be the death of this country.

Post: #172

Djemba, a gold back currency for international trade prevents the sort of abuses that the world has had to endure since we depegged the dollar from gold. They have been through that and they are sick of eating our inflation. You can't print gold but you can print fiat, endlessly. Right now, there is the desire for anything else globally, gold backed or not, and Russia and China have already signed a bilateral agreement to conduct trade in Renminbi and Ruples, not dollars:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/busine...ble15.html

Interesting times. Ultimately whomever has the gold when currencies collapse makes the rules. The Euro and the United States dollar are headed for collapse.

Jim Rickards wrote an excellent book, Currency Wars, in which he discusses how the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has in physical possession 6,000 tons of foreign gold, mostly European, and how in conjunction with United States gold holdings (if private and foreign gold on US soil were confiscated) would total to 17,000 tons or 57% of official global reserves. To cite the book, this would put the United States in the same relative position as 1945, after Brenton Woods, when we controlled 63% of the worlds gold reserves. That is the ace up the sleeve. A "new United States dollar" can be issued, equal in value to 10 "old dollars". The new dollar will be convertible into gold at the price of $1000 per ounce (equivalent to $10,000 old dollars). Stability is restored, debts are devalued, and life continues.


The alternative is total global financial collapse and world war, that's the threat. Asia could turn their back and close off trade, splitting the world. Who knows. I think right now the United States may appear stupid, we truly are reckless, but the strength of the dollar position will be revealed. Unfortunately a lot of the worlds savings are in dollars and those holding dollars will be wiped out. That represents the effective loss of tremendous capital to cover reckless debt. It is, at the very least, entirely unethical.

Post: #173

I think you are looking at inflation from the wrong point of view. Moderate inflation has been proven to be good for the overall economic activity and investment, as well as reducing debt burdens. An inflation of 2% is not something that will do that or consume anyone's wealth or bite you in the ass - in fact, an inflation of 2% is considered really low. It's strange to say that Fed is causing inflation when there is almost no inflation at all right now.
In usual conditions (read: not in a slump), when the central bank achieves an inflation of just 2%, it pats itself on the back for a job well done. In these conditions, though, having inflation of just 2% is like slowly strangling yourself.

I agree with everything about the foolishness of unrestricted bank bailouts, but that is an entirely different issue from welfare, economic stimulus and government debt.

Post: #174

(07-04-2012 02:47 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  I think you are looking at inflation from the wrong point of view. Moderate inflation has been proven to be good for the overall economic activity and investment, as well as reducing debt burdens. An inflation of 2% is not something that will do that or consume anyone's wealth or bite you in the ass - in fact, an inflation of 2% is considered really low. It's strange to say that Fed is causing inflation when there is almost no inflation at all right now.
In usual conditions (read: not in a slump), when the central bank achieves an inflation of just 2%, it pats itself on the back for a job well done. In these conditions, though, having inflation of just 2% is like slowly strangling yourself.

I agree with everything about the foolishness of unrestricted bank bailouts, but that is an entirely different issue from welfare, economic stimulus and government debt.

Inflation takes a long time to manifest itself.

First the money is printed, and depending on velocity can take anywhere from a few years to a few decades before it is circulated through the economy.


Good example is the money printing in the 1960's; wasn't till the 70's before the inflation was a major issue.


America isn't close to experiencing its inflation yet. The FED tripled the base monetary reserves.

Just wait and see man, because it's coming like a tidal wave after the earthquake.

Post: #175

Samseau has it right. The Fed is making a massive bet that it can slowly devalue the dollar and not have a collapse. If the dollars being hoarded by the banks and held in and by foreign countries hit our shores, the dollar will collapse. Of course, this won't happen while the USD is the reserve currency, which is why the US is so desperate to prevent use of gold-backed currency by other countries.